[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Ham:
 ... The MOQ is compatible with non-theistic religions, with non-theistic forms of mysticism. The Stanford Encyclopedia has a substantial article on "Mysticism" so you certainly don't have to take my word for it. A few sentences from the opening paragraphs is enough to show this.


"Typically, mystics, theistic or not, see their mystical experience as part of a larger undertaking aimed at human transformation and not as the terminus of their efforts. Thus, in general, ‘mysticism’ would best be thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions. Under the influence of William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, heavily centered on people's conversion experiences, most philosophers' interest in mysticism has been in distinctive, allegedly knowledge-granting “mystical experiences.” Philosophers have focused on such topics as the classification of mystical experiences, their nature in different religions and mystical traditions, to what extent mystical experiences are conditioned by a mystic's language and culture, and whether mystical experiences furnish evidence for the truth of their contents."

Ham replied:
OK, so despite the fact that Mr. Pirsig specifically labeled his philosophy "atheistic", the MoQers are not "anti-theists" but "mystics".  And, although mystics may be "theistic or not", they "see mystical experience as part of a "human transformation".  I note that David describes mysticism as "a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences," all of which are products of social behavior, giving no credit to  the inspiration, intuitive insight, or intellection of the individuals who created these products.  As far as dmb is concerned, what fuels mysticism is the collective "language and culture" of its people.


dmb now says:


I guess you better slow down. Please read these words very carefully. Ready?

The description that you've attributed to me and dismissed with mocking tones is not mine. You are arguing with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The articles are written and scrutinized by professional academics and they are considered to be among the best scholarly sources, right up there with journal articles and University presses. 

I quoted just a few sentences from the introduction to a long, substantial article because I was trying to make one simple point. Again, please read carefully. Here is the point again: being an atheist does NOT mean you can't be a mystic and it does NOT mean you oppose all religions. Why? Because there are non-theistic forms of mysticism and there are non-theistic religions. The MOQ is NOT a form of theism and yet it IS a form of mysticism.

I'm trying very hard not to lose my temper. But I am completely fed up with people who cannot or will not respect the evidence. In philosophy, the Stanford articles definitely count as evidence. And the lines I quoted say absolutely nothing controversial. It's just the first and most basic distinction to make before engaging in ANY discussion of mysticism. That's why they put it in the opening paragraphs.

I'm drowning in a sea of fools. It's so depressing. God help us.